Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[smartcooky]

Are you in NZ mate??
I'm just asking because I heard on the radio the other day ticket sales are at 80%.
As far as I know, thats better than most other tournaments.

just bear in mind that if it starts raining at a game, people will retreat under cover. I noticed this during the games on the weekend.

Australia 2003... 81%
France 2007... 85% (a disappointing result considering that France is within a 1hr flight of anywhere in Europe; a market of 470 million people)

 

[FlukeArtist]

Don't get me wrong I agree on the not reading things properly etc. I feel that it was easy to undersatand the initial posts given the way the press had made it look.
I just felt calling people STUPID ***S was a little harsh.

The later posts have been pretty reasoned and informative.

When I first read the article I thought WTF why are the AB's threatening to hold the WC to ransom over money. Others on this thread then explained the reason with some cracking posts and articles. The inital article began with New Zealand have threatened to boycott the 2015 World Cup in England.

Making the reader ill informed, hence I think some of the comments. Later the matter has been discussed in detail and I think what Tew has said is right. The way it was initialy reported could have been put better by the Telegraph. Tew prehaps could have made his arguement better to prevent the bloody media turning it into what it has. I am under no doubt they are going for the look at those greedy All Blacks wanting more money or they will not play arguement, with the intent of causing exactly what has happend on this forum.

All that did was cause a storm in a tea-cup on here with the way it was reported. With people seeing it as a chance to knock the AB's.

Hang on mate,

it's not the "way it was reported" it was the way it was posted on here

Look what "Teh Mite" posted:

Steve Tew getting the excuses in

Even by Kiwi standards, this is early...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...-millions.html

​

Now that is an inflammatory post/thread made by someone who obviously either a) has an agenda, b) does not actually have the attention span to read an entire article, or C) is just a complete idiot intent on trolling for responses.
Take your pick.
I personally think he is leaning towards a combination of all 3.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Australia 2003... 81%
France 2007... 85% (a disappointing result considering that France is within a 1hr flight of anywhere in Europe; a market of 470 million people)

Ah fair enough- thanks Mate.

Though I would add the disclaimer that the 80% result I heard was after the 1st week of RWC, so that number could yet rise.
Personally I have been to 4 games, 3 of which were sold out, and only 1 of which involved NZ.
BUt- thats off topic anyway

 

[Saintjay]

Hang on mate,

it's not the "way it was reported" it was the way it was posted on here

Look what "Teh Mite" posted:

Steve Tew getting the excuses in

Even by Kiwi standards, this is early...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...-millions.html

​

Now that is an inflammatory post/thread made by someone who obviously either a) has an agenda, b) does not actually have the attention span to read an entire article, or C) is just a complete idiot intent on trolling for responses.
Take your pick.
I personally think he is leaning towards a combination of all 3.

Yep agreed, but the way the article is written may have contributed to the way it was posted. Had the paper not reported it with the line it did you might not have got some of the reactions that you have seen. Which could explain some of the negative reaction on here as it is what the article was generated to do.

The later articles have been better balanced reporting allowing discussion. I am not making excuses for any bias, inflammatory comments but any paper that say's AB'S threaten to boycott WC.
Is going to get that sort of reaction from some, which in my view is clearly what the Telegraph intended.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Yep agreed, but the way the article is written may have contributed to the way it was posted. Had the paper not reported it with the line it did you might not have got some of the reactions that you have seen. Which could explain some of the negative reaction on here as it is what the article was generated to do.

The later articles have been better balanced reporting allowing discussion. I am not making excuses for any bias, inflammatory comments but any paper that say's AB'S threaten to boycott WC.
Is going to get that sort of reaction from some, which in my view is clearly what the Telegraph intended.

Yep- and I guess that is sadly the way the media is going these days.

Its liek Hugh Grant said to that "reporter" that was involved in the phone hacking scandal "you seem like a smart enough guy- you should give journalism a try, I reckon you could probably do it"

Same comment could be made about Stephen Jones, mark reason, Chris Rattue etc

 

[Saintjay]

Australia 2003... 81%
France 2007... 85% (a disappointing result considering that France is within a 1hr flight of anywhere in Europe; a market of 470 million people)

It will be interesting to see how England and Wales get's on. As far as I am aware the majorty of the ground they are using will be Premier leauge football stadiums.

Including Anfield and The Emirates, Old Trafford, they are going to be some pretty large grounds to fill. I guess the RFU are hoping to sell a vast amount of tickets.

 

[Teh Mite]

Hang on mate,

it's not the "way it was reported" it was the way it was posted on here

Look what "Teh Mite" posted:

Steve Tew getting the excuses in

Even by Kiwi standards, this is early...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...-millions.html

​

Now that is an inflammatory post/thread made by someone who obviously either a) has an agenda, b) does not actually have the attention span to read an entire article, or C) is just a complete idiot intent on trolling for responses.
Take your pick.
I personally think he is leaning towards a combination of all 3.

Or option D perhaps; An overtly sarcastic person disinterested in Kiwi preciousness or politics while at the same time poking fun at the attention grabbing headline.

A wait, that "Teh Mite" bloke is a ****ing Pom. No. You're right. He's a biased, lazy trolling prick. **** you, Teh Mite.

 

[smartcooky]

Or option D perhaps; An overtly sarcastic person disinterested in Kiwi preciousness or politics while at the same time poking fun at the attention grabbing headline.

Looks like a bit of back-pedalling going on here..... you stuffed up, have realised it, won't admit it, and are now covering for it.

Its a bit rude on your part to wade in, stick the knife into Tew, and then accuse those who support him of being "precious" when you are brought to book!

 

[Teh Mite]

Looks like a bit of back-pedalling going on here..... you stuffed up, have realised it, won't admit it, and are now covering for it.

Its a bit rude on your part to wade in, stick the knife into Tew, and then accuse those who support him of being "precious" when you are brought to book!

Bit presumptuous that. I stand by everything I said.

**** like

Now that is an inflammatory post/thread made by someone who obviously either a) has an agenda, b) does not actually have the attention span to read an entire article, or C) is just a complete idiot intent on trolling for responses.
Take your pick.
I personally think he is leaning towards a combination of all 3.

is lowering to personal comments. Which again ties in nicely with the response.

But then again that Teh Mite bloke is only a ****ing pom. What does he know. Actually, how DARE he talk about New Zealand. Filthy northerner.


PS. Cookie - If New Zealand have to spend/loose multi millions on a World cup, they're either doing something wrong or not cutting their cloth to suit. If the G&T brigade from the Six Nations' unions and South Africa can manage it, when New Zealand can't although they've not even had to travel, they're the ones at fault.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Or option D perhaps; An overtly sarcastic person disinterested in Kiwi preciousness or politics while at the same time poking fun at the attention grabbing headline.

A wait, that "Teh Mite" bloke is a ****ing Pom. No. You're right. He's a biased, lazy trolling prick. **** you, Teh Mite.

Geezus.
Mate, if that is your attempt at humour, that is 4ucking LAME.

And by the way- Option D sounds awfully like trying to rationalise Option C there champ.

You 4ucked up- take it on the chin.

 

[Teh Mite]

Geezus.
Mate, if that is your attempt at humour, that is 4ucking LAME.

And by the way- Option D sounds awfully like trying to rationalise Option C there champ.

You 4ucked up- take it on the chin.

No, it wasn't. Honestly.

But if you bit, all the better. :lol:

 

[FlukeArtist]

No, it wasn't. Honestly.

But if you bit, all the better. :lol:

Thank you for justifying my opinion of your thread being a combo of options A, B & C

 

[Teh Mite]

Thank you for justifying my opinion of your thread being a combo of options A, B & C

I guess that told that northern monkey... :lol:

 

[TRF_Olyy]

When did being from the NH get brought into this? :huh:

 

[FlukeArtist]

I guess that told that northern monkey... :lol:

This is where i'll pack it in mate.
Because, as the saying goes: there is no point arguing with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Enjoy RWC 2011 in New Zealand champ. I know I am.
Thanks again to the IRB for giving us the hosting rights!

 

[Teh Mite]

This is where i'll pack it in mate.
Because, as the saying goes: there is no point arguing with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Enjoy RWC 2011 in New Zealand champ. I know I am.
Thanks again to the IRB for giving us the hosting rights!

And power to you. Hopefully you'll say the same thing in 4 and 8 years also. It'd be a shame if Steve Tew takes his ball and stays at home for those ones.

 

[smartcooky]

PS. Cookie - If New Zealand have to spend/loose multi millions on a World cup, they're either doing something wrong or not cutting their cloth to suit. If the G&T brigade from the Six Nations' unions and South Africa can manage it, when New Zealand can't although they've not even had to travel, they're the ones at fault.

This just shows everyone clearly, that even after all the discussion, you STILL don't understand the issue.

You will find that the RFU will come out in support (once they see which way the wind is blowing). The ARU already have and SARU will follow soon. The NZRU, ARU, SARU and the RFU have been trying to get the IRB Executive to address the issue of restricted sponsorship and the reduced international program for eight years, but they won't budge.

Collectively, the top 10 unions lose £55 million because of this. There is no reason on God's Green Earth why South Africa should not be allowed to continue to use their "ABSA" logo, Italy their "CARIPARMA" logo and England the "O2" logo on their jerseys at the RWC. It would have hardly any impact on the IRB's sponsorship, but it has a HUGE impact on those countries...

The current financial model for running Rugby World Cups simply cannot continue.

 

[JW.]

This just shows everyone clearly, that even after all the discussion, you STILL don't understand the issue.

You will find that the RFU will come out in support (once they see which way the wind is blowing). The ARU already have and SARU will follow soon. The NZRU, ARU, SARU and the RFU have been trying to get the IRB Executive to address the issue of restricted sponsorship and the reduced international program for eight years, but they won't budge.

Collectively, the top 10 unions lose £55 million because of this. There is no reason on God's Green Earth why South Africa should not be allowed to continue to use their "ABSA" logo, Italy their "CARIPARMA" logo and England the "O2" logo on their jerseys at the RWC. It would have hardly any impact on the IRB's sponsorship, but it has a HUGE impact on those countries...

The current financial model for running Rugby World Cups simply cannot continue.

55mil/10=5.5 mil, NZ would still lose money? Haven't read the whole discussion but how can you lose money on such a huge event. It can't just be blamed on the 55mil losted in sponsorships. Has NZ taken in account the ammount of tax money they should get off the hotel owners, bars etc.?

 

[Teh Mite]

This just shows everyone clearly, that even after all the discussion, you STILL don't understand the issue.

You will find that the RFU will come out in support (once they see which way the wind is blowing). The ARU already have and SARU will follow soon. The NZRU, ARU, SARU and the RFU have been trying to get the IRB Executive to address the issue of restricted sponsorship and the reduced international program for eight years, but they won't budge.

Collectively, the top 10 unions lose £55 million because of this. There is no reason on God's Green Earth why South Africa should not be allowed to continue to use their "ABSA" logo, Italy their "CARIPARMA" logo and England the "O2" logo on their jerseys at the RWC. It would have hardly any impact on the IRB's sponsorship, but it has a HUGE impact on those countries...

The current financial model for running Rugby World Cups simply cannot continue.

You honestly believe these unions don't earn sponsorship money just because their logos aren't on the shirts?

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I have no idea how much you do or don't know about business (for that matter, I don't care either), however I can assure you - considering the number of crappy adverts on TV etc. - The businessmen who organise these multi-million pound sponsorship deals more then had that covered.

For that matter, what effect would it have on All Blacks?


As for the RFU - if it meant Martyn Thomas and co could keep their gin locker fully topped up they'd come out in support changing union to the 13 man code. Their loyalties involves looking after their own, not the sport. Always has done.

 

[Larksea]

good on Tew for this, NZRU needs to protect it's income.

The reality is that NZ is a small country and we don't have heaps of cash or the population to draw massive crowds every week at home during the super season. For New Zealand to function at the top level we rely on the All blacks drawing big crowds during tri nations and End of year games and their sponsors in a HUGE way. But During RWC year there are less tri-nations games and no end of year tour. Plus to rub salt into the wound the main sponsors of the all blacks can't get the exposure they want so revenue drops in that area too because of Deals the IRB have setup. Perfect example is Steinlager sponsoring the All Blacks can't get the exposure during RWC year because of Heineken's deal with the IRB cuts them out.

New Zealand is a player and coaching talent factory for World Rugby, I'd say more so than any other nation. Look at all the Kiwi coaches and players throughout all the teams at this RWC. And the All Black Brand I think is the most important brand in the sport that's used to develop the game internationally. People in countries that aren't associated with Rugby at least know two things about the game. One The All Blacks and two the Haka.